+1
Python 3.2 is not likely to be relevant going forward because conservative
users are anyway still on 2.x.
Malthe
On Wed 5 Nov 2014 at 21:39 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > On 05 Nov 2014, at 17:55, Tres Seaver wrote:
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 11/05/2
> On 05 Nov 2014, at 17:55, Tres Seaver wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/05/2014 10:44 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>
>>> On 05 Nov 2014, at 15:57, Tres Seaver
>>> wrote: Unicode literals are a no-no for 3.2-compatibility:
>>
>> How important is 3.2 compat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/05/2014 10:44 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> On 05 Nov 2014, at 15:57, Tres Seaver
>> wrote: Unicode literals are a no-no for 3.2-compatibility:
>
> How important is 3.2 compatibility?
We don't ordinarily drop a supported Python version a n
> On 05 Nov 2014, at 15:57, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Unicode literals are a no-no for 3.2-compatibility:
How important is 3.2 compatibility?
Wichert.
___
Repoze-dev mailing list
Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org
https://lists.repoze.org/mailman/listinfo/repoze
